Part 12

It is in this _latter_ sense that I understand the term when applied to justification. “Abraham believed God, and it was _counted_ unto him for righteousness—To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is _counted_ for righteousness.” The counting, or reckoning, in these instances, is not a judging of things _as they are_; but _as they are not, as though they were_. I do not think that faith here means the righteousness of the Messiah: for it is expressly called “believing.” It means believing, however, not as a virtuous exercise of the mind which God consented to accept instead of perfect obedience, but _as having respect to the promised Messiah_, and so to his righteousness as the ground of acceptance.[44] Justification is ascribed to faith, as healing frequently is in the New Testament; not as that from which the _virtue_ proceeds, but as that which _receives_ from the Saviour’s fulness.

But if it were allowed that faith in these passages really means the object believed in, still this was not Abraham’s _own_ righteousness, and could not be properly _counted_ by him who judges of things as they are, as being so. It was _reckoned_ unto him _as if it were_ his; and the effects, or benefits of it were actually imparted to him: but this was all. Abraham did not become meritorious, or cease to be unworthy.

“What is it to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, (says Calvin,) but to affirm that hereby only we are _accounted_ righteous; because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us AS IF IT WERE OUR OWN.”[45]

It is thus also that I understand the imputation of sin to Christ. He was accounted in the divine administration _as if he were, or had been_ the sinner, that those who believe in him might be accounted _as if they were, or had been_ righteous.

Brethren, I have done. Whether my statement be just or not, I hope it will be allowed to be explicit.

_John._ That it certainly is; and we thank you. Have you any other questions, brother Peter, to ask upon the subject?

_Peter._ How do you understand the apostle in 2 Cor. v. 21. _He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him?_

_James._ Till lately I cannot say that I have thought closely upon it. I have understood that several of our best writers consider the word αμαρτια (_sin_) as frequently meaning a _sin-offering_. Dr. Owen so interprets it in his answer to Biddle,[46] though it seems he afterwards changed his mind. Considering the opposition between the sin which Christ was made, and the righteousness which we are made, together with the same word being used for that which he was _made_, and that which he _knew not_, I am inclined to be of the doctor’s last opinion; namely, that the sin which Christ was made, means _sin itself_; and the righteousness which we are made, means _righteousness itself_. I doubt not but that the allusion is to the sin-offering under the law; but not to its being _made a sacrifice_. Let me be a little more particular. There were two things belonging to the sin-offering. _First_: The imputation of the sins of the people, signified by the priest’s laying his hands upon the head of the animal, and confessing over it their transgressions; and which is called “putting them upon it.”[47] That is, it was _counted_ in the divine administration _as if the animal had been_ the sinner, and the only sinner of the nation. _Secondly_: Offering it in sacrifice, or “killing it before the Lord for an atonement.”[48] Now the phrase, _made sin_, in 2 Cor. v. 21. appears to refer to the _first_ step in this process in order to the last. It is expressive of what was preparatory to Christ’s suffering death rather than of the thing itself, just as our being _made righteousness_ expresses what was preparatory to God’s bestowing upon us eternal life. But the term _made_ is not to be taken literally; for that would convey the idea of Christ’s being really the subject of moral evil. It is expressive of a divine _constitution_, by which our Redeemer with his own consent, stood in the sinner’s place, as though he had been himself the transgressor; just as the sin-offering under the law was, in mercy to Israel, reckoned or accounted to have the sins of the people “put upon its head,” with this difference; that was only a shadow, but this went really to take away sin.

_Peter._ Do you consider Christ as having been _punished, really and properly_ PUNISHED?

_James._ I should think I do not. But what do you mean by punishment?

_Peter._ An innocent person may _suffer_, but, properly speaking, he cannot be _punished_. Punishment necessarily supposes _criminality_.

_James._ Just so; and therefore as I do not believe that Jesus was in any sense criminal, I cannot say he was really and properly punished.

_Peter._ Punishment is the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil. It is not necessary, however, that the latter should have been committed by the party—Criminality is supposed: but it may be either personal or imputed.

_James._ This I cannot admit. Real and proper punishment, if I understand the terms, is not only the infliction of natural evil for the commission of moral evil; but the infliction of the one _upon the person who committed the other, and in displeasure against him_. It not only supposes criminality, but that the party punished was literally the criminal. Criminality committed by one party, and imputed to another, is not a ground for real and proper punishment. If Paul had sustained the punishment due to Onesimus for having wronged his master, yet it would not have been real and proper punishment _to him_, but _suffering_ only, as not being inflicted in displeasure against him. I am aware of what has been said on this subject, that there was a more intimate _union_ between Christ and those for whom he died, than could ever exist between creatures. But be it so, it is enough for me that the union was not such as THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE ONE BECAME THOSE OF THE OTHER. Christ, even in the act of offering himself a sacrifice, when, to speak in the language of the Jewish law, the sins of the people were put or laid upon him, gave himself nevertheless THE JUST FOR THE UNJUST.

_Peter._ And thus it is that you understand the words of Isaiah, _The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all_?

_James._ Yes, he bore the punishment due to our sins, or that which, considering the dignity of his person, was equivalent to it. The phrase “He shall bear his iniquity,” which so frequently occurs in the Old Testament, means, he shall bear the punishment due to his iniquity.

_Peter._ And yet you deny that Christ’s sufferings were properly _penal_.

_James._ You would not deny eternal life which is promised to believers to be properly _a reward_; but you would deny its being _a real and proper reward_ TO THEM.

_Peter._ And what then?

_James._ If eternal life, though it be a reward, and we partake of it, yet is really and properly the reward of Christ’s obedience, and not our’s; then the sufferings of Christ, though they were a punishment, and he sustained it, yet were really and properly the punishment of our sins, and not his. What he bore _was_ punishment: that is, it was the expression of divine displeasure against transgressors. So what we enjoy is reward: that is, it is the expression of God’s well-pleasedness in the obedience and death of his Son. But neither is the one a punishment _to him_, nor the other, properly speaking, a reward _to us_.

There appears to me great accuracy in the scriptural language on this subject. What our Saviour underwent is almost always expressed by the term _suffering_. Once it is called a _chastisement_: yet there he is not said to have been chastised; but “the chastisement of our peace was _upon him_.” This is the same as saying he bore _our_ punishment. He was made a curse for us: that is, having been reckoned, or accounted the sinner, as though he had actually been so, he was treated accordingly, as one that had deserved to be an outcast from heaven and earth. I believe the wrath of God that was due to us was poured upon him, but I do not believe that God for one moment was angry or displeased _with him_, or that he smote him from any such displeasure.

There is a passage in Calvin’s _Institutes_, which so fully expresses my mind, that I hope you will excuse me if I read it. You will find it in Bk. ii. chap. xvi. § 10, 11. “It behoved him that he should, as it were, hand to hand, wrestle with the armies of hell, and the horror of eternal death. The chastisement of our peace was _laid upon him_. He was smitten of his Father for our crimes, and bruised for our iniquities: whereby is meant that he was put in the stead of the wicked, as surety and pledge, yea, and as the very guilty person himself, to sustain and bear away all the punishments that should have been laid upon them, save only that he could not be holden of death. Yet do we not mean that God was at any time either his enemy, or angry with him. For how could he be angry with his beloved Son, upon whom his mind rested? Or how could Christ by his intercession appease his Father’s wrath towards others, if, full of hatred, he had been incensed against himself? But this is our meaning—that he sustained the weight of the divine displeasure; inasmuch as he, being stricken and tormented by the hand of God, DID FEEL ALL THE TOKENS OF GOD WHEN HE IS ANGRY AND PUNISHETH.”

_Peter._ The words of scripture are very express—He hath _made him to be sin for us_—He was _made a curse for us_.—You may, by diluting and qualifying interpretations, soften what you consider as intolerable _harshness_. In other words, you may choose to correct the language and sentiments of inspiration, and teach the apostle to speak of his Lord with more decorum, lest his personal purity should be impeached, and lest the odium of the cross, annexed by divine law, remain attached to his death: but if you abide by the obvious meaning of the passages, you must hold with _a commutation of persons_, the _imputation_ of sin and of righteousness, and a _vicarious punishment_, equally pregnant with _execration_ as with _death_.

_John._ I wish brother Peter would forbear the use of language which tends not to convince, but to irritate.

_James._ If there be any thing convincing in it, I confess I do not perceive it. I admit with Mr. _Charnock_, “That Christ was ‘made sin’ _as if he had_ sinned all the sins of men; and we are ‘made righteousness,’ _as if we had_ not sinned at all.” What more is necessary to abide by the obvious meaning of the words? To go further must be to maintain that Christ’s being _made sin_ means that he was literally rendered wicked, and that his being _made a curse_ is the same thing as his being punished for it according to his deserts. Brother Peter, I am sure, does not believe this shocking position: but he seems to think there is a medium between his being treated _as if he were_ a sinner, and his _being one_. If such a medium there be, I should be glad to discover it: at present it appears to me to have no existence.

Brother Peter will not suspect me, I hope, of wishing to depreciate his judgment, when I say, that he appears to me to be attached to certain terms without having sufficiently weighed their import. In most cases I should think it a privilege to learn of him: but in some things I cannot agree with him. In order to maintain the _real_ and _proper punishment_ of Christ, he talks of his being “guilty by imputation.” The term _guilty_, I am aware, is often used by theological writers for _an obligation to punishment_, and so applies to that voluntary obligation which Christ came under to sustain the punishment of our sins: but strictly speaking, guilt is the _desert_ of punishment; and this can never apply but to the offender. It is the opposite of innocence. A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than a consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves they are untransferable. To say that Christ was _reckoned_ or _counted_ in the divine administration _as if he were_ the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing: but to say he _deserved_ that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ. If Christ by imputation became _deserving_ of punishment, we by non-imputation cease to deserve it; and if our demerits be literally transferred to him, his merits must of course be the same to us: and then, instead of approaching God as _guilty_ and _unworthy_, we might take consequence to ourselves before him, as not only guiltless, but meritorious beings.

_Peter._ Some who profess to hold that believers are justified by the righteousness of Christ, deny, nevertheless, that his _obedience itself_ is imputed to them: for they maintain that the scripture represents believers as receiving only the _benefits_, or effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, or their being pardoned and accepted for Christ’s _righteousness sake_.—But it is not merely _for the sake_ of Christ, or of what he has done, that believers are accepted of God, and treated as completely righteous; but it is IN him as their Head, Representative, and Substitute; and by the imputation of that _very obedience_ which as such he performed to the divine law, that they are justified.

_James._ I have no doubt but that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness presupposes a _union_ with him; since there is no perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one _for another’s sake_ where there is no union or relation subsisting between them. It is not such a union, however, as that THE ACTIONS OF EITHER BECOME THOSE OF THE OTHER. That “the scriptures represent believers as _receiving_ only the benefits or the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification,” is a remark of which I am not able to perceive the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be and is imputed, while its effects only are _imparted_, and consequently _received_. I never met with a person who held the absurd notion of imputed benefits, or imputed punishments; and am inclined to think there never was such a person. Be that however as it may, sin on the one hand and righteousness on the other, are the proper objects of imputation; but that imputation _consists_ in charging or reckoning them to the account of the party in such a way as to _impart_ to him their evil or beneficial effects.

_Peter._ The doctrine for which I contend as taught by the apostle Paul, is neither novel, nor more strongly expressed than it has formerly been by authors of eminence.

_James._ It may be so. We have been told of an old protestant writer who says, that “In Christ, and by him, every true Christian may be called _a fulfiller of the law_:” but I see not why he might not as well have added, Every true Christian may be said to have been slain, and, if not to have redeemed himself by his own blood, yet to be worthy of all that blessing, and honour, and glory, that shall be conferred upon him in the world to come.—What do you think of Dr. CRISP’S Sermons? Has he not carried your principles to an extreme?

_Peter._ I cordially agree with WITSIUS, as to the impropriety of calling Christ _a sinner, truly a sinner, the greatest of sinners_, &c. yet I am far from disapproving of what Dr. CRISP, and some others, _meant_ by those exceptionable expressions.

_James._ If a Christian may be called _a fulfiller of the law_, on account of Christ’s obedience being imputed to him, I see not why Christ may not be called _a transgressor of the law_, on account of our disobedience being imputed to him. Persons and things _should be called what they are_. As to the _meaning_ of Dr. CRISP, I am very willing to think he had no ill design: but my concern is with the meaning which his words convey to his readers. He considers God in charging our sins on Christ, and accounting his righteousness to us, as reckoning of things _as they are_. (p. 280.) He contends that Christ was _really_ the sinner, or guilt could not have been laid upon him. (p. 272.) Imputation of sin and righteousness, with him, is literally and actually A TRANSFER OF CHARACTER; and it is the object of his reasoning to persuade his believing hearers that from henceforward Christ is the sinner, and not they. “Hast thou been an idolater, says he; a blasphemer, a despiser of God’s word, a profaner of his name and ordinances, a thief, a liar, a drunkard—If thou hast part in Christ, _all these transgressions of thine become actually the transgressions of Christ, and so cease to be thine; and thou ceasest to be a transgressor from the time they were laid upon Christ, to the last hour of thy life_: so that now thou art _not_ an idolater, a persecutor, a thief, a liar, &c.—thou art not a sinful person. Reckon whatever sin you commit, when as you have part in Christ, you are all that Christ was, and Christ is all that you were.”

If the _meaning_ of this passage be true and good, I see nothing exceptionable in the expressions. All that can be said is, that the writer explicitly states his principle and avows its legitimate consequences. I believe the principle to be false.—(1.) Because neither sin nor righteousness are _in themselves_ transferable. The act and deed of one person may _affect_ another in many ways, but cannot possibly become his act and deed.—(2.) Because the scriptures uniformly declare Christ to be sinless, and believers to be sinful creatures.—(3.) Because believers themselves have in all ages _confessed_ their sins, and applied to the mercy-seat for _forgiveness_. They never plead such an union as shall render their sins not theirs, but Christ’s; but merely such a one as affords ground to apply for pardon _in his name_, or _for his sake_; not as worthy claimants, but as unworthy supplicants.

Whatever reasonings we may give into, there are certain times in which _conscience_ will bear witness, that notwithstanding the imputation of our sins to Christ, _we are actually the sinners_; and I should have thought no good man could have gravely gone about to overturn its testimony. Yet this is what Dr. Crisp has done. “Believers _think_, says he, that they find their transgressions in their own consciences, and they _imagine_ that there is a sting of this poison still behind, wounding them: but, beloved, if this principle be received for a truth, that God hath laid thy iniquities on Christ, how can thy transgressions, belonging to Christ, be found in thy heart and conscience?—Is thy conscience Christ?” p. 269.

Perhaps no man has gone further than Dr. CRISP in his attempts at consistency; and admitting his principle, that imputation consists in a transfer of character, I do not see who can dispute his conclusions. To have been perfectly consistent, however, he should have proved that all the confessions and lamentations of believers, recorded in scripture, arose from their being under the _mistake_ which he labours to rectify; that is, _thinking_ sin did not cease to be theirs, even when under the fullest persuasion that the Lord would not impute it to them, but would graciously cover it by the righteousness of his Son.—— ——

_John._ I think, brother Peter, you expressed at the beginning of our conversation, a strong suspicion that brother James denied the _substitution of Christ_, as well as the proper imputation of sin and righteousness. What has passed on the latter subject would probably tend either to confirm or remove your suspicions respecting the former.

_Peter._ I confess I was mistaken in some of my suspicions. I consider our friend as a good man; but am far from being satisfied with what I still understand to be his views on this important subject.

_John._ It gives me great pleasure to hear the honest concessions of brethren, when they feel themselves in any measure to have gone too far.

_Peter._ I shall be glad to hear brother James’s statement on _substitution_, and to know whether he considers our Lord in his undertaking as having sustained the character of a _Head_, or _Representative_; and if so, whether the persons for whom he was a substitute were the elect only, or mankind in general.

_James._ I must acknowledge that on this subject I feel considerably at a loss, I have no consciousness of having ever called the doctrine of substitution in question. On the contrary, my hope of salvation rests upon it; and the sum of my delight, as a minister of the gospel, consists in it. If I know any thing of my own heart, I can say of my Saviour as laying down his life _for, or instead of_ sinners, as was said of Jerusalem by the captives—_If I forget_ THEE, _let my right hand forget: If I do not remember_ THEE, _let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth_!

I have always considered the denial of this doctrine as being of the essence of Socinianism. I could not have imagined that any person whose hope of acceptance with God rests not on any goodness in himself but entirely on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him _as if it were his own_, would have been accounted to disown his substitution. But perhaps, my dear brother, (for such I feel him to be, notwithstanding our differences,) may include in his ideas of this subject, that Christ was so our _head_ and _representative_, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered in him.—If no more were meant by this, resumed James, than that what he did and suffered is graciously accepted on our behalf _as if it were ours_, I freely, as I have said before, acquiesce in it. But I do not believe, and can hardly persuade myself that brother Peter believes, the obedience and sufferings of Christ to be so ours, as that we can properly be said to have obeyed and suffered.

Christ was and is our _head_, and we are his members: the union between him and us, however, is not in all respects the same as that which is between the head and the members of the natural body: for that would go to explain away all distinct consciousness and accountableness on our part.

As to the term _representative_, if no more be meant by it than that Christ so personated us as to die in our stead, that we, believing in him, should not die, I have nothing to object to it. But I do not believe that Christ was so our representative, as that what he did and suffered, we did and suffered; and so became meritorious, or deserving of the divine favour.—But I feel myself in a wide field, and must entreat your indulgence while I take up so much of the conversation.

_Peter and John._ Go on, and state your sentiments without apology.